Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Afrikaners aren't Dutch silly,they are native born South Africans.
Been there for over 350 years.
Google is your friend if you want to become educated on the topic.
Some are of English and other west European heritage too from what I have heard...surely the mixing have made sure most of them have dutch in them though.
Some are of English and other west European heritage too from what I have heard...surely the mixing have made sure most of them have dutch in them though.
The 'English' there aren't considered Afrikaners...at least not by Afrikaners.
So anyway,should the Zulu return to their ancestral homeland too?
What of the Cape Colored and Indians?Are they also to be at the same economic level?Also which particular tribal group should be the starting point?
Of course, there is no reason why Africans should be worse off on their own continent than whites or Indians who have only arrived there a few centuries ago. No matter how long they have lived there, they will never be as African as black Africans, be it Bushmen or Bantus. As long as black people see whites on their continent who have better lives than them, there will be problems.
I think the black people of SA are very generous, they have not retaliated for the long time of apartheid. They could have simply killed and expelled whites, but they didn't, thanks to Mandela and people like him.
Of course, there is no reason why Africans should be worse off on their own continent than whites or Indians who have only arrived there a few centuries ago.
You are going to lump the ENTIRE continent and various tribes of Africa all together....
Quote:
No matter how long they have live there, they will never be as African as black Africans, be it Bushmen or Bantus.
So the color of a person's skin IS the deciding factor on whether they deserve to live somewhere...THAT is quite interesting.DO you use the same criteria in other nations/geographical areas?
You are going to lump the ENTIRE continent and various tribes of Africa all together....
So the color of a person's skin IS the deciding factor on whether they deserve to live somewhere...THAT is quite interesting.DO you use the same criteria in other nations/geographical areas?
Bushmen and Bantus have to sort out their history themselves, that is none of our business, it's an internal African issue.
As I said, I am not saying whites should be expelled or anything like that, but they should arrive at the same economic level the rest of the population lives. There is for instance no reason why whites should own more and/or better land than their percentage of the population suggests.
I have seen interviews with some of those Afrikaners, they still think they are better, they don't mix with blacks etc. Basically they still have the mentality of colonial people.
Why?They are relatively recent arrivals to region of South Africa...displaced/subjugated those who were already living there...
Only difference I could see is...they are black.
Surely you aren't going to base such things on skin color?
An Englishman is an Englishman...even if other people dont consider themselves as such.
The difference is the intermingling between the zulu and xhosa makes it very possible that a great number(If not majority) of the zulu population in south Africa have ancestry that could be considered rather "native" to that area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.